Previously only admins were allowed to move messages between streams
and admins are allowed to post in any stream irresepctive of stream
post policy, so there was no need to check for stream post policy.
But as we now allow other members to also move messages, we need
to check whether the user who is moving the message is allowed
to post to the target stream (i.e. stream to which the messages
are being moved) and thus we allow moving messages only if the
user is allowed to post in target stream.
Currently, moving messages between streams is an action limited to
organization administrators. A big part of the motivation for that
restriction was to prevent users from moving messages from a private
stream without shared history as a way to access messages they should
not have access to.
Organization administrators can already just make the stream have
shared history if they want to access its messages, but allowing
non-administrators to move messages between would have
introduced a security bug without this change.
If the caller has already fetched the Stream or subscription details
for the user, those can be passed to has_message_access to avoid extra
database queries.
As of now, editing a widget doesn't update the rendered content.
It's important to ensure that existing votes or options added later on
don't get deleted when rendered.
This seems more complex than it's worth.
For now, we just prevent edits to widgets.
This commit makes the UI clearer that editing widgets isn't allowed.
See also:
https://github.com/zulip/zulip/issues/14229https://github.com/zulip/zulip/issues/14799Fixes#17156
Remove content edit keys if present in edit_history_event
when passing to update_messages_for_topic_edit.
Since content edit is only applied to the edited_message,
this shouldn't be part of the rest of the messages for which
topic was edited. This was a bug identified by
editing topic and content of a message at the same time
when more than 1 message is affected.
This commit adds new helper can_move_messages_between_streams
which will be used to check whether a user is allowed to move
messages from one stream to another according to value of
'move_messages_between_streams_policy'.
This wasn't being validated before. There wasn't any possibility to
actually succeed in moving a private message, because the codepath would
fail at assert message.is_stream_message() in do_update_message - but we
should have proper error handling for that case instead of internal
server errors.
Otherwise an admin can move a topic from a private stream they're no
longer a part of - including the newest messages in the topic, that
they're not supposed to have access to.
A bug in the implementation of the topic moving API resulted in
organization administrators being able to move messages to streams they
shouldn't be allowed to - private streams they weren't subscribed to and
streams in other organization hosted by the same Zulip installation.
In our current model realm admins can't send messages to private streams
they're not subscribed to - and being able move messages to a
stream effectively allows to send messages to that stream and thus the
two need to be consistent.
Changed the name of the test-user cordelia from `Cordelia Lear` to
`Cordelia, Lear's daughter`.
This change will enable us to test users with escape characters in
their names.
I also updated the Node, Puppeteer, Backend tests and Fixtures to
support this change.
Messages sent by muted users are marked as read
as soon as they are sent (or, more accurately,
while creating the database entries itself), regardless
of type (stream/huddle/PM).
ede73ee4cd, makes it easy to
pass a list to `do_send_messages` containing user-ids for
whom the message should be marked as read.
We add the contents of this list to the set of muter IDs,
and then pass it on to `create_user_messages`.
This benefits from the caching behaviour of `get_muting_users`
and should not cause performance issues long term.
The consequence is that messages sent by muted users will
not contribute to unread counts and notifications.
This commit does not affect the unread messages
(if any) present just before muting, but only handles
subsequent messages. Old unreads will be handled in
further commits.
Instead of just storing the edit history in the message which
triggered the topic edit, we store the edit history in all
the messages that changed. This helps users track the edit history
of a message more reliably.
In 709493cd75 (Feb 2017)
I added code to render_markdown that re-fetched the
sender of the message, to detect whether the message is
a bot.
It's better to just let the ORM fetch this. The
message object should already have sender.
The diff makes it look like we are saving round trips
to the database, which is true in some cases. For
the main message-send codepath, though, we are only
saving a trip to memcached, since the middleware
will have put our sender's user object into the
cache. The test_message_send test calls internally
to check_send_stream_message, so it was actually
hitting the database in render_markdown (prior to
my change).
Before this change we were clearing the cache on
every SQL usage.
The code to do this was added in February 2017
in 6db4879f9c.
Now we clear the cache just one time, but before
the action/request under test.
Tests that want to count queries with a warm
cache now specify keep_cache_warm=True. Those
tests were particularly flawed before this change.
In general, the old code both over-counted and
under-counted queries.
It under-counted SQL usage for requests that were
able to pull some data out of a warm cache before
they did any SQL. Typically this would have bypassed
the initial query to get UserProfile, so you
will see several off-by-one fixes.
The old code over-counted SQL usage to the extent
that it's a rather extreme assumption that during
an action itself, the entries that you put into
the cache will get thrown away. And that's essentially
what the prior code simulated.
Now, it's still bad if an action keeps hitting the
cache for no reason, but it's not as bad as hitting
the database. There doesn't appear to be any evidence
of us doing something silly like fetching the same
data from the cache in a loop, but there are
opportunities to prevent second or third round
trips to the cache for the same object, if we
can re-structure the code so that the same caller
doesn't have two callees get the same data.
Note that for invites, we have some cache hits
that are due to the nature of how we serialize
data to our queue processor--we generally just
serialize ids, and then re-fetch objects when
we pop them off the queue.
All the fields of a stream's recipient object can
be inferred from the Stream, so we just make a local
object. Django will create a Message object without
checking that the child Recipient object has been
saved. If that behavior changes in some upgrade,
we should see some pretty obvious symptom, including
query counts changing.
Tweaked by tabbott to add a longer explanatory comment, and delete a
useless old comment.
Fixes#16284.
Most of the work for this was done when we implemented correct
behavior for guest users, since they treat public streams like private
streams anyway.
The general method involves moving the messages to the new stream with
special care of UserMessage.
We delete UserMessages for subs who are losing access to the message.
For private streams with protected history, we also create UserMessage
elements for users who are not present in the old stream, since that's
important for those users to access the moved messages.
sahil839
Mateusz Mandera
Tim Abbott
Ganesh Pawar
Aman Agrawal
Arun Sankar
Abhijeet Prasad Bodas
shanukun
Anders Kaseorg
Steve Howell
Mohit Gupta